Re: MOGUL Mangled Math

From: Tim Printy <TPrinty.nul>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:08:10 EST
Archived: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:00:54 -0400
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math
>From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest>>>To: ufoupdates.nul>Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 05:41:06 EST>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Sparks>I am not even going to bother quoting this long>tirade from math challenged Tim Printy, who made a>grave mistake taking me on when he doesn't know>what he is talking about.
I am not sure what you mean by a "grave mistake". Is it because
you felt that you could not be wrong and people should not
challenge your claims? I may be math challenged but I am still
trying to figure out how you measured 34 miles on the 1997
figure (Note: Rudiak lists this value as 31 miles on his
website)?
>Printy's phony map "measurements" with all the>bogus decimals are deceptively done on PRINTY's>MAP locations rather than on MOORE's MAP>locations, and are completely invalid and irrelevant>to my measurements on Moore's maps.
Hmmm... I am not sure what you mean by Printy's map. I
apparently used the same maps as you. That is, the maps
published in Pflock's book, the Moore/Saler/ Ziegler book, and
the 1994 USAF report. Are there others that I am not aware of?
Perhaps you can present them for us to examine. Otherwise, my
values are not invalid or irrelevant until you can show that
they are. Is this rebuttal by declaration? Are you suggesting
that Rudiak's 31 miles is "phony" as well since it disagrees
with your 34 miles?
>Just take your rulers out folks and make the>measurements on Moore's maps and see if I am right.>Post your results here.
Please do. I stand by my measurements. Just don't use some ruler
that you take out of a crayon box.
>Printy does not explain why, if my 10-11-mile distance>measurements on Moore's false maps are supposedly>misleading, does Moore say in 2002 that the balloon>passed 15-20 MILES FROM ROSWELL BASE????
Since you have not stated what the context of this statement was
and since I have not seen a direct quote, I can't make a
comment. If this is what you say he said, how am I to contest
it? What is important is the information that was presented
publicly for all to examine.
>The map falsification issue is simple: Contrary to>Printy who doesn't even know the basic facts about>authorship of the reports in question, C. B. Moore was>lead author of the 1948 NYU report
Not so simple but you seem to want to think that way.
The report was "prepared" by three individuals, one of
which was Moore. This does not make Moore the
producer of the map. Moore clearly states in his book
that others were creating these plots, which is why he
corrected them. J.R. Smith (one of the three individuals
who is named) seems to be responsible for these plots
based on the 1949 summary of flights paper that he
solely prepared and includes maps/plots.
>in 1995 and 1997 Moore falsely claimed to>"REPRODUCE" a map from the 1948 report>"WITHOUT CHANGE."
Hmmm... are you sure it says he reproduced the map? I don't
think so. The actual statement is:
"The plot for Flight #5 was taken without change from figure
32..."
Note the word plot and not map. Some people might uses these in
the same context and others might use them differently. They way
it appears to read is that Moore took the values of the flight
path from figure 32 and transcribed them to his larger scale
chart he was using. You will have to ask him. However, it seems
a reasonable interpretation. Why he would have to include RAAF
on his map is beyond me but you seem to see something nefarious
in this. Was he supposed to include Cloudcroft as well, since it
was also on figure 32?
>Moore could not possibly have traced the "Roswell">dot from the old map or photocopied the dot's location,>he actually MOVED the dot's location.
So you seem to think. Considering that his map shows scales of X
and Y, it would not be hard to transcribe the points for the
flightpath in figure 32 onto his map. For some reason you think
he "traced" these values. Moore seems to have taken a different
path to reproduce the flight path
>Moore has to falsify map evidence to make it seem>unlikely that Roswell tower personnel saw the 657-foot>balloon in the bright morning sun with a B-17 bomber>chasing it weeks before Brazel's find.
Hmm... is it a fact that people were in the tower that morning?
Were flight operations occurring? Were there designated
personnel for sweeping the skies for unusual aircraft? I am not
sure this was the case. Recall that it is peacetime and 1947. If
I recall correctly, there was no long-range radar (or apparently
any radar) at RAAF at the time. The balloon itself was not 657
feet long or wide. It was a series of balloons, all about 15-
feet in diameter connected by a line. Seeing such a set of small
objects from the distances described, would have been difficult
for a casual observer and also difficult for those in the tower,
who may have been busy doing something else. Speculation that
they must have seen the flight is not evidence that they did and
there is no evidence to suggest that if they saw the flight that
they even reported it to senior base personnel.
>Why did Moore mislead and say he had>REPRODUCED" the map "WITHOUT CHANGE"?
Because he never used the word "map" but I wouldn't expect you
to understand this since you seemed convinced that you are
right. Instead, you are convinced that, before anybody even
mentioned it, Moore figured that he would have to alter his maps
to divert everyone's attention from flight #5's pass near the
base.
>Printy his flunky apologist...
I thought this was supposed to be a civil debate but here you
are resorting to name-calling.
>The rest of Printy's math falsehoods will be dealt with>later.
Most people refer to mathmatical errors as that and not
falsehoods. Does this mean your measurements, if proven
incorrect, are "falsehoods" instead of mistakes? I make no
claims that my calculations are 100% accurate but I do wonder
how you make claims about certain values without any supporting
documentation.
Tim Printy